Are you ignoring the fact that most English words can carry more than one meaning? If your alien observer has been watching us for long, they will already know this. I think most English speakers do too. In the sense that you are using, all words, and their definitions, are subjective (as you observe). Does that conclusion get us anywhere?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 10:58 am I did not ask you want objective was in different circumstances, I asked you what objectivity is.
And the fact that, as I agree, the answer, depends; that means the definition of objectivity is subjective.
This leaves a endless cycle of navel gazing and semantic argumentation about a common word used in philosophy. I think that most words would engender the same problem.
Right now, an observer from another planet would be no clearer as the the meaning of objectivity.
Rationalist taboo
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Rationalist taboo
By the way you are talking, it would seem that the idea that words have several meanings is the meaning of objectivity.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 12:40 pmAre you ignoring the fact that most English words can carry more than one meaning? If your alien observer has been watching us for long, they will already know this. I think most English speakers do too. In the sense that you are using, all words, and their definitions, are subjective (as you observe). Does that conclusion get us anywhere?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 10:58 am I did not ask you want objective was in different circumstances, I asked you what objectivity is.
And the fact that, as I agree, the answer, depends; that means the definition of objectivity is subjective.
This leaves a endless cycle of navel gazing and semantic argumentation about a common word used in philosophy. I think that most words would engender the same problem.
Right now, an observer from another planet would be no clearer as the the meaning of objectivity.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo
This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?
Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
This seems to be the point at which you have misunderstood me. I offered "objectivity" as an example of a word known to carry several meanings, any of which might be referred to by the writer. In this topic, and in this example within this topic, "objectivity" carries any and all of its possible meanings. It's a sort of superposition, which is only clarified at the point, in some future objectivity debate, when the writer uses it. At that point, the writer has in mind one particular meaning of "objectivity", and it is only at that point that the one intended meaning can be defined and clarified.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Rationalist taboo
FFS this is not a definition.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 8:41 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo
This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?
Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
This seems to be the point at which you have misunderstood me. I offered "objectivity" as an example of a word known to carry several meanings, any of which might be referred to by the writer. In this topic, and in this example within this topic, "objectivity" carries any and all of its possible meanings. It's a sort of superposition, which is only clarified at the point, in some future objectivity debate, when the writer uses it. At that point, the writer has in mind one particular meaning of "objectivity", and it is only at that point that the one intended meaning can be defined and clarified.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 8:41 am I offered "objectivity" as an example of a word known to carry several meanings, any of which might be referred to by the writer. In this topic, and in this example within this topic, "objectivity" carries any and all of its possible meanings. It's a sort of superposition, which is only clarified at the point, in some future objectivity debate, when the writer uses it. At that point, the writer has in mind one particular meaning of "objectivity", and it is only at that point that the one intended meaning can be defined and clarified.
Well, you're getting there. No, it isn't a definition. How can I define a word that I used to carry all of its possible meanings simultaneously? Even if I recite all the definitions of each meaning, it will miss the point. I already explained, in considerable detail, above.
This topic is about a technique that might assist in mutual understanding. You are focussing too strongly on an illustrative example that, for you at least, did not do its job well.
"Who cares, wins"
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023